Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, to the families that have been apart for 6 weeks and have no place to live, it looks like foreign aid to us.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 13 days since Congress recessed without taking action on the urgently needed disaster bill. Now, in its first action since coming back into session, it takes up the foreign aid bill. It was wrong of Congress to recess without taking action on the disaster bill, and it is wrong for us to commit taxpayer resources to help the others before we have committed those resources to helping our own. To the flood victims I represent, this feels like Congress is trying to literally shove our nose in the muck and the filth left by the rampaging Red River. This is what the scene is like in Grand Forks, ND, today. Lives left on the lawn. Everything that river touched that river wrecked. We have hundreds of homes destroyed, hundreds more severely damaged and thousands of people not knowing where they are going to live, families separated now for 6 weeks, not knowing when they can get back together. We have to take action on the disaster bill. It is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form to pass foreign aid before we take action on this bill. Let us today vote down the rule, vote down the previous question motion that will be before us, and attach to this rule in consideration of this legislation the disaster bill so that none of us have to go home and face constituents like I will have to or my colleagues might have to someday that ask, why can we help everyone else and not help our own? Mr. Speaker, it is time to help our own. They desperately need it. Defeat this rule and help our own.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is now day 12, 12 days since Congress recessed without taking action on the disaster supplemental appropriations bill. It is the sixth week since an absolutely devastating flood, a flood of 1,000-year proportion, hit Grand Forks and inundated North Dakota's second largest city, a city of 50,000 people. One of the things that as we saw the footage broadcast throughout this country and, in fact, across the world, as you looked at literally a city steeped in the Red River water, it was a horrible visage. But one of the things that I think we perhaps could not fully appreciate as we watched that horrible site and saw the fires ravaging the downtown in the middle of this floodwater is the extent of damage occurring in each and every structure that had that floodwater in it. During the 12 days since Congress recessed I spent a good deal of that time in Grand Forks. The stories that I heard directly from the people impacted from this flood were among the most moving I have heard from anyone. What I believe Congress failed to realize as it recessed and went home without taking action was that it left literally thousands of people in the area I represent utterly in limbo. Some have suggested that the disaster did not need prompt attention, FEMA is operating, SBA is operating, the programs are in the pipeline chugging along happily, providing all the disaster relief anyone could ever require. That is simply wrong; they are simply wrong. In fact, the disaster bill hung up in conference committee contains in one of its most essential parts $500 million of community development block grants. This funding is literally the linchpin of the Grand Forks' recovery effort because it will provide the funding for the expanded floodway, it will provide the buyouts that will purchase the homes in the floodway, giving their owners the capital they need to get on with planning where they are going to live next; do they build, do they buy? Whatever. Without that community development block grant funding, without the assurance, and the commitment of those resources to our area, people are utterly on hold. Imagine having your home in the floodway, but with the city unable to determine exactly what funding will be available for home buyout purchase, the city cannot tell you whether or not to repair your home. Now your home has got about $20,000 or $30,000 worth of damage, and this is the case of hundreds of homes. You do not know whether to put in $20,000 or $30,000; you already lost most of your life's investment in the equity of your home. You do not know whether to put in that money without knowing whether you might be bought out and forced to move within a year again anyway. And so you wait, as hundreds of families are waiting in Grand Forks each and every day of the 12 days that Congress went out on recess without taking action. Your children may be living with grandparents or relatives, other relatives, maybe friends. Your family may be scattered. You may be commuting 90 miles one way to work because you do not have a place to live, and Congress recesses. And during the recess, Mr. Speaker, Members traveled all over the world enjoying their time away from legislative business. Well, the people in Grand Forks would have liked to have taken time away from their business, their business of trying to pull themselves out of the floodwater and the mud of the Red River and get on with their productive lives. But they could not do it, and the reason they could not do it is because this bill was hung up in conference committee. There was a tremendous constructive, bipartisan effort in building a good disaster bill. I personally have stood here on the floor of the House and expressed my appreciation to the Speaker, to the majority leader and to the other Members, both in the majority and the minority, who have worked together to build such a meaningful relief package to our area. But it does not do any good if it is not passed. Simple as that. Mr. Speaker, deed is in the enacting and getting the resources available. Promises at this point mean nothing to people who have got no place to live. The conference committee reconvenes tomorrow. It is my urgent hope and request of the conferees that, as they come back into session, remember those in the flood-ravished areas I represent, put politics aside, and get about the business of getting people the help they so desperately need.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is one that ought to be accepted by acclamation, both parties, staying within the spirit of this historic balanced budget agreement. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I enthusiastically supported the agreement. I supported it because I felt it represented a compromise, a compromise that provided Americans with a balanced budget, with tax cuts, and yet with essential commitments to programs and national priorities that reflect our basic values. Now, what is before us tonight in the motion to instruct conferees offered by my colleague from South Carolina is simply to go with the Senate provision 104(b) of the Senate-passed resolution that the 10- year cost of the tax cuts shall be $250 billion and, second, with section 321 of the Senate-passed resolution that there ought to be a fair distribution of tax cuts as to the $250 billion. This is not a figure that has just come up on the floor of the House, thrown into this motion. It was at the heart of the negotiations. It was at the heart of the negotiations because the Senate requires a 10- year look at revenue losses under tax cuts, first of all; and, second, because a balanced budget plan that tried so mightily to reach balance by 2002 would be a sham if it had a provision that exploded the revenue loss under the tax cuts and threw the budget wildly out of balance in the years 2003 through 2007. This is not about hitting once a balanced budget only to spin wildly out of control again. This is about getting America on a firm financial foundation with a balanced budget in the year 2002 and in the years that follow that. That is why the 10-year $250 billion figure is so critical. Finally, as we get to tax breaks, let us direct those tax breaks to those who really need them, the middle-income, working-income Americans that are stressed so hard trying to make ends meet. That was agreed to by the Senate, a Republican-controlled Senate, with substantial support from both political parties. This section 321 talks about a substantial majority of tax cuts benefits will go to middle-class working families earning less than approximately $100,000 per year and will not cause revenue losses to increase significantly in the years after 2007. So all we are asking is that this balanced budget agreement reflect balance not just in 2002 but in the years after 2002, and that those who benefit from the tax cuts primarily be Americans earning under $100,000 and less. Quite frankly, we have to make priorities and we have to direct the tax cuts to those who need them the most, working income, middle-income Americans. Please go with the motion to instruct.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the time and attention that the majority leader has spent looking at the consequences of the natural disasters experienced in our region, the people of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and Devils Lake, ND. The gentleman's statement represents a very great disappointment to me and to those I represent. I think there was a reasonable expectation that Congress would respond to this disaster and do so in a timely manner. The outside dimension of that timely response, I think, was before we certainly left for the Memorial Day recess, and now the gentleman indicates that that would not be the case. Just when would the gentleman estimate that the relief so desperately needed would finally be accomplished?

Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, this will be my final point in this discussion, Mr. Leader. Let me again say I appreciate the gentleman's personal time and attention, the personal time and attention of all, majority, minority alike, that have focused on our problem and worked in the appropriations process to get some relief. But the bottom line is this: If this Congress goes home without doing something to provide flood relief to those who need it, this Congress will have failed. I urge a no vote on the motion to adjourn.

Mr. POMEROY. I make one final point. The outpouring of support the people I represent have seen from across the country in response to the disaster that has hit us so brutally hard has been overwhelming. I think the American people truly had a right to expect that their governing body, the Congress of the United States, in a timely fashion would also commit the resources to help get our area back on its feet. I am going to ask the Members to resist the motion, to vote ``no'' on adjournment. We have no business leaving town with the disaster supplemental in a point of incomplete status. We have got to finish this up. The people we represent deserve no less.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize an impressive young North Dakotan. Adam DeFoe of Devils Lake was the 1997 State winner in the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice Democracy Broadcast Scriptwriting Contest. Mr. DeFoe's essay is based on the theme ``Democracy--Above and Beyond''. I am very excited to see such worthwhile ideas coming from North Dakota's youth. It is my pleasure to submit Mr. DeFoe's essay for inclusion in the Congressional Record: Democracy--Above and Beyond (By Adam DeFoe) ``Democracy, above and beyond all other forms of government. What exactly does this phrase mean? To find out, I took each letter of democracy and found a word befitting this form of government starting with that letter. It is as follows. First of course is `D'. I chose two words for this letter. The first is dependence. Democracy stands for dependence upon the people for an efficient government unit. Dependence upon the people is the key to democracy, for without the people's say in the government, what kind of government is it? My next word is dauntless. Synonyms for this word include fearless and bold. A democracy is indeed dauntless because it is government by the people. If the people are in charge, of course they will be bold and fearless. This is what they fought for, went above and beyond their call of duty for, for a government that is indeed above and beyond all others. Next, we have the letter `E'. For this letter I chose empowerment. Again we come back to the people. The people are indeed empowered in Democracy as it is their form of government: ``of the people, by the people, for the people''. Without a government such as a democracy, the people would have little or no say in the government, as is the case in lower forms of government such as a tyranny or monarchy, where the rule is just by a few and oftentimes by the least competent few. We move on now to the letter `M'. For this letter I settled upon majority rule. A democracy is rule by the majority, not by just the wealthy or by those who inherit their positions. The voice of the majority is heard and ruled upon. The laws of the country are governed as such. This is government in its truest form, this is democracy. Now we have `O'. For `O' we have obligation. This word relates not only to the Democratic government, but also to the people. The government's first and foremost duty is to do what is right for the people, to defend and protect their rights and interests. However, these people, too, are obliged to see that the government does these things, to see that the government is run well and efficiently. Moreover, it is the people's obligation to vote, so that their voice may be heard. For without this very important part of the democratic process it is very hard for the government, or democracy as a whole, to be above and beyond all other forms of government. This brings us now to the letter `C'. I found the word `change' to be appropriate for this letter. People crave changes. Democracy gives them that. True, other forms of government do give change, such as a monarchy, for example, but in a democracy it's good change, a change the people want. Also, a change that democracy needs, to have fresh ideas and thoughts in the government. It is the people's responsibility to see that this change is brought forth. Next, we have `R'. Resilience. It is my belief that a democratic government is resilient. Resilience to change, and to recover quickly from these changes that are imperative to Democracy. Resilience is also needed to recover quickly from misfortune. The people in a democratic nation may band together more quickly than would other nations with other forms of government for the reason that they've had to work together in the past to form and make their democratic government work and will remain banded together in times of disaster. After that comes `A'. For `A' we have adapt. This word is important to democracy in that democracy has evolved over time from other forms of government such as the caste system. Democracy originated in Ancient Greece and has since then adapted and changed to the needs of modern society. Moving on now `C', we have culture. A democracy can represent all forms of culture in a nation. It can represent all of the people, rich or poor, educated or not. This is the essence of democracy, representing all walks of life equally. Favoring no one. Going ``above and beyond all other forms of government'' in this way. Finally we come to the letter `Y'. For this I have chosen the word `yes'. The word `yes' in that I say yes to democracy, a fine government in which people can express their opinions without fear of oppression. A government where people can guarantee themselves the freedoms they want. Yes, a democracy, above and beyond all forms of government. I think it's spelled out quite clearly.''

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1377, the SAVER Act, and to join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in urging the House to pass this important legislation. I want to commend specifically the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Fawell, and the gentleman from New Jersey, ranking member Payne, for their attention to the critical issue of retirement security and for their dedication to crafting bipartisan solutions that will advance the goal of economic security in retirement for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, statistics demonstrate that our Nation faces an impending crisis when it comes to retirement savings. From World War II until 1980, personal savings rates as a percent of disposable income in this country averaged nearly 8 percent. Yet, in recent years, personal savings rates have fallen dramatically, now averaging barely 4 percent, half of what it was earlier. People are simply not saving what they will need to have a financially secure retirement. Indeed, one-third of those close to retirement age have savings of less than $10,000. One in six new Social Security recipients has no retirement savings whatsoever. The problem is particularly acute for modest-income workers. Among the millions in this country with incomes of less than $25,000 a year, fully 42 percent report no retirement savings. And in the baby-boom generation which is rapidly approaching the retirement period, only one in three baby-boomers is on track in their savings for a financially secure retirement. Mr. Speaker, by focusing on education, the SAVER Act takes an important step in turning this retirement crisis around. A key ingredient in achieving a secure retirement is knowledge, knowing what savings opportunities are out there, knowing how compound interest can work for you, knowing how to plan for retirement throughout one's career, and knowing some basic investment strategies. Too many people simply lack this information, and we must step up the education efforts so that all Americans will have the tools to plan and save for their own retirement. Retirement education efforts in the workplace have proven enormously effective in getting employees to participate in their 401(k) and pension plans and in providing them with basic information about retirement savings. Yet, more than half of all private sector workers do not have access to a retirement plan at work, and so they miss out on these educational efforts. The SAVER Act addresses this need by involving the Government in a broad public-private partnership to educate American workers about retirement savings. Specifically, the act directs the Department of Labor to maintain an ongoing program of outreach and education about retirement planning. It convenes a series of national summits on retirement savings at the White House over the next decade. These focused and high-profile efforts will help get the message about the importance of savings to every American so that retirement information no longer depends on the good fortune of having a pension plan at work. Today, with our retirement system undergoing profound change, education is more important than ever before. For the first time, many Americans are now relying on defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)'s rather than the traditional defined-benefit pension plans for their retirement security. While 401(k)'s are quite popular with employers and employees alike and offer some undeniable advantages, they also involve a substantial shift of retirement risk from the employer to the worker. Employees must decide what portion of their income to contribute, how to invest their contributions, whether to take loans or withdrawals from their accounts, and how to use their 401(k) savings wisely over the course of their retirement. All this adds up to more risk on the shoulders of individual workers, who may or may not be ready to accept this additional risk. And the risk for those without retirement plans at the workplace, who must save for retirement all on their own, are even greater. The education about retirement planning and savings authorized by the SAVER Act will help individuals manage their new-found retirement responsibility. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the SAVER Act represents a first step in what will be an ongoing series of bipartisan efforts to enhance retirement secured by expanding pension coverage, increasing pension participation, and boosting permanent savings rates. While education is critical, it is not the where-all and end-all at getting at this problem; it must be paired with efforts to get more workers covered by retirement plans and the development of a comprehensive national strategy for achieving retirement security. Along these lines, I am pleased to have joined with my good friends, the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Fawell, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Nancy Johnson, in introducing legislation that spurs pension coverage of small business employees and cuts pension redtape for small business. Just this past Friday, we introduced H.R. 1656, the Secure Assets for Employees Plan Act of 1997, also known as SAFE Act. This will allow small businesses to offer simplified defined- benefit pension plans. SAFE plans will provide all small business employees with a secure, fully portable retirement benefit without choking small business with complex rules and regulations they simply cannot afford. Unfortunately, only 24 percent of small business employees today have access to a retirement plan at work. We have got to do better than that. I look forward to working with Chairman Fawellto advance the SAFE Act so that more small businesses can offer pension benefits to their workers. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing another piece of legislation which I believe will help advance our Nation's retirement policy. This bill, the Retirement Savings Commission Act of 1997, will create a specific national commission to examine the scope of the retirement savings crisis and recommended policies to help improve the economic security of retirement workers. The Retirement Savings Commission will be the only Federal panel solely charged with exploring pension and savings issues that will help us develop the comprehensive national strategy on retirement savings that we have so sorely lacked in the past. We have had Social Security commissions, we have had Medicare commissions, but we never looked in a dedicated way at the variety of private savings opportunities and assessed whether or not we have a coherent national strategy for private retirement savings. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me again congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] for their leadership on this issue and for the excellent bill they have crafted in the SAVER Act. I urge all my House colleagues to advance the cause of retirement education and support this bill, and I look forward to working in the weeks ahead to see that this measure is quickly passed by the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this budget agreement. The agreement before us represents at least procedurally the hardest thing this body ever tries to do, compromise differences, accept less than what each party wants, and tolerate aspects of the agreement each party would not include if it were simply a matter of writing its own package. Throughout the history of this place, this Chamber is mostly a matter of winner-take-all, the party of the majority passes the bills they want, and that is the end of it. In times of divided government, that often means a Presidential veto and the legislative initiative dies in the partisan standoff. Such was the fate of the balanced budget drive in the last Congress and it very well could have happened to the balanced budget effort this Congress, but the American people deserve better and the President and the leaders of Congress, both House and Senate, both majority and minority, have worked to give them better. This budget agreement accomplishes that difficult task. Back where I come from and across the country, Americans wanted the parties to work together to iron out the most difficult problems facing this country. They wanted a balanced budget. They have to do it as individual families. Collectively they wanted to do it on behalf of the country. But they also wanted our values reflected. Those values include protecting the health care that our seniors depend upon, committing to a bright educational opportunity for our young people, and the opportunity for people at a midcareer track to go back and get the skills training they need to compete in the work force today. It also means working and middle-income families find it just a little easier to make ends meet. Now I believe the agreement before us accomplishes all of this in a reasonable but not perfect fashion. Most importantly, it reaches a balanced budget and does so in a way that I think fairly reflects those values. Mr. Chairman, as a 5-year member of the Committee on the Budget, I am extremely pleased to say I am supporting this agreement, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman on the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution in front of us. It captures an agreement that is truly historic in nature. It leads us to a balanced budget. It does so with the give-and-take that has occurred between both political parties and a mutual resolution that this is a reasonable deal to get to the balanced budget and preserve the priorities that we feel are critical to this country. Because I favor this resolution and feel so strongly about the give-and-take in the agreement that brought us here, I must speak against the Shuster- Oberstar amendment that would break up this deal on the floor before the resolution can even be adopted. There are a number of reasons to oppose the Shuster amendment and none of them terribly easy. Obviously transportation and infrastructure is critical. But there are many, many critical priorities captured in this budget agreement. Mr. Chairman, a deal is a deal, and this deal represents a compromise that has been painstakingly cobbled over weeks and weeks; terribly difficult decisions reflecting in my view a balanced outcome leading us to this balanced budget. Let us take a look at some of the tradeoffs, because one of the things about the Shuster amendment is you just focus on one thing. You do not really focus on what you have to give up if the Shuster amendment should be adopted. Right off the top, a $5.4 billion hit to defense. The Secretary of Defense announced just yesterday he wants two additional base closure rounds to try and fit within the budget he is trying to live with. This would take an additional $5.4 billion out of defense. Also, $5.8 billion in nondefense discretionary, cutting programs like education, like housing, like our support to the efforts to fight crime. A deal is a deal. Support the resolution. Do not unravel the deal on the floor tonight by supporting the Shuster amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today is National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. I would like to take a moment to honor two North Dakota peace officers who were killed in the line of duty. Keith Braddock was a Watford City police officer who was shot to death in March of last year while he was responding to a disturbance at the American Legion Club. Charles Pulver was a game warden in Mountain, ND. He died from a massive heart attack that he suffered while he was investigating game violations in a wooded area. Both of these men died while they were serving the people of North Dakota. As the families of these two men are in Washington, DC, to take part in the National Police Week activities and to see the officers' names added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, I want to share with them the gratitude of our entire state. North Dakota is a small rural State. Our citizens pride themselves on knowing their neighbors. In communities like ours, any act of violence is a shock. The events that surround both of these officers' deaths are truly tragic. The unselfish service these men gave to protect our citizens has not gone unnoticed. Officer Braddock and Officer Pulver made our communities safer because of their service. The ultimate sacrifices they made will be remembered by today's ceremonies and by the Officers memorial for years to come.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I thank very, very sincerely the Committee on Appropriations chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for their assistance in working up an appropriate disaster relief proposal, formed as the Thune amendment. Mr. Chairman, what we have in North Dakota is an absolute disaster, the dimensions of which we have never experienced before. Grand Forks, ND, second largest town in the State, A town of 50,000, was under water, and the consequences of it are absolutely devastating for the businesses and the homeowners that reside there. What we are finding as we begin tackling the rebuilding component of this is the additional needs that are simply not met with the existing programs. For example, we literally have hundreds of homes in the floodway, a floodway that is proposed to be razed, and a permanent dike established so we do not have this problem ever again. These individuals need to know right now whether or not funds will be available on a home buyout proposal so they might have the means to build on higher ground while the city's enhanced flood protection program moves forward. The Thune amendment allows this to happen by transferring funds from FEMA into the Community Development Block Grant, to be more flexibly applied to the unique needs that this situation presents. The CDBG funds in the Thune amendment are not exclusively for the area, and other areas that have had disasters may also access these funds to augment the existing structure of disaster relief programs. What we have seen with the Thune amendment is a bipartisan response to a truly national disaster. President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, all have visited the area. The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] have worked at great length putting this together. Please support the Thune amendment and the bill.

Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman, the ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is impossible in 50 seconds to describe what our area has been hit with, but pictures tell 1,000 words. A flood. A flood of a 1,000-year dimensions. A flood to the signposts, causing more harm than one can possibly imagine. Water destroys everything it touches, and so now the businesses and the homes, virtually all of the City of Grand Forks, 50,000 people, is devastated. The second picture, anguish. This is a woman being evacuated from her home in the dead of night. The anguish and the pain that these people have experienced defies description. This anguish has given way to pain. Pain realizing the permanent loss of business, permanent loss of house, permanent loss of possessions. This cries out for a bipartisan response. I so salute the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for the work he has done. I appreciate the support of the Speaker and the majority leader, I appreciate the support of the appropriations chairman in bringing this matter before us. Please pass this amendment.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I represent the State of North Dakota. I am the only Representative in Congress that North Dakota has. It is my responsibility to advocate for North Dakota at a time when we are reeling from the worst natural disaster we have ever experienced. Many of the Members are aware of the pain that we have suffered in light of the floods of the Red River this spring. The national media coverage has documented the destruction of the city of Grand Forks, N.D. These pictures, I believe, tell what words cannot in terms of just what a devastating event this was. This is a street sign at the corner of Fourth Street and Eighth Avenue. You can see the water right up to the bottom of the sign. At this juncture the water was literally in excess of 6 feet, flooding neighborhoods, street after street after street. Even in areas of town that were not hit with this depth of water, the water still was sufficient to fill basements and come up on the main floor. We are still dealing with the devastation that flood water causes to homes and personal belongings. At a time when we thought things could not get any worse, they did get worse. Fires broke out in downtown Grand Forks, destroying our historic business district. Eleven buildings burned. A fireman who fought the fire explained it this way. He said it was so unusual, because water is usually the fireman's friend. ``In this instance it prevented us from stopping the destruction of these buildings. We were simply incapable of getting our equipment to the fire. Then when we dove below the water to hook up the hoses to the hydrants, water pressure had failed and we had to stand by and watch the buildings burn.'' The net result was reflected by this picture, a business district in smoldering ruin, a city standing in water. The water has receded, and the picture that we would see in Grand Forks if we drove around the neighborhoods today is of huge mounds; not mounds of snow that we often see during some of our winters, but mounds of wet, wrecked sheet rock removed from basements and main floors, commingled with belongings, belongings that now appear just as rubble but before the flood were baby pictures, wedding pictures, letters from relatives that may not even be living any longer, priceless family mementoes, the things that make a house a home, all destroyed in the water's wrath. That has left the people of Grand Forks, N.D. in a very terrible situation. We have literally hundreds of homes in the flood water, and I commend the city leaders because they are stepping up to the plate, and they are not going to reconstruct everything just as it was, to face the threat of flooding in the future. They want to remake this community. But in order to do that, we need to get on with the program that buys homes in the floodway and pays owners the cash they deserve so they can get on with their lives. That would have been permitted under the Thune amendment to the disaster bill, had the rule passed. Had the rule passed, we would be debating that right now, and we would be that much closer in terms of getting relief back to those who need it. Immediately following the disaster there was an outpouring of support across the country the like of which we have never seen in North Dakota. It was followed by the visit by the President of the United States on a Tuesday, the Speaker of the House on a Friday, and the majority leader of the House on the following Monday. Leaders of both political parties came into the area, expressing concern and support for the people as they tried to rebuild their lives. Those people are dealing with some problems that we cannot even imagine. We have to get after this disaster bill in order to address them. Let me read to the Members a question presented to the city commission the other night at a tumultuous city commission meeting attended by more than 1,100 displaced homeowners: ``What am I supposed to do? I have no place to live, I can't make my mortgage payment, I'm commuting 90 miles one way to work, my kids are living with relatives. Will I have a place to live in 3 months, 6 months, a year?'' The only answer the mayor and city commissioners could give is, we do not know. Congress is deliberating a disaster package. I hope that we do not stray from the initial inclination to make a strong bipartisan response in support of people who need help, people who have been devastated with natural disasters, including the floods in Grand Forks. I hope we can rise above the temptation that often so afflicts this body of falling into partisan recriminations and dealing with everything but the thing that ought to be before us. What is before us is disaster relief to people who need it. I urge both parties, all Members of this body, to to pass a disaster supplemental bill just as fast as possible. My people really need the help.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding, and indeed it is the amendment of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] that I care so deeply about. I am speaking in favor of this rule. In doing so I understand I am at odds with people in my own caucus whom I deeply respect. It does not happen often, particularly on ruled debates, but I think it is important to remember that at the heart of this bill is disaster relief for people who desperately need it. I do not think there is a group in the country that is as desperately in need of the relief in this bill as those in the district I represent, the State of North Dakota, and particularly the region of Grand Forks, ND. No one can remember when a city of 50,000 has gone entirely under water, but that is the circumstance, tragically, that happened to us when the Red River, which has a flood stage of 28 feet, finally crested at 54 feet, almost double the flood stage. We need the relief that the amendment of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] offers to this package. It is allowed under the rule. Frankly, it concerns me that non-disaster relief amendments are also pending, and throughout the afternoon I intend to vote against each and every extraneous matter that might impede this bill. But let us address it amendment by amendment. Let us not take this whole package off the floor and put it away for another day. Let me tell my colleagues exactly what is at issue. We have in North Dakota homeowners that face enormous costs of repair to their home before they can even move back in: $20,000 $30,000 $40,000. Their homes are in the floodway. If they throw that kind of investment back into their home, they may have to cash out and move their home in a year because of the arrangements being made to make sure this flood never happens again. Only by the passage of the Thune amendment and package of the disaster supplemental bill in its ultimate enactment do we get back the ability for people in Grand Forks to buy those homes, get them out of the floodway, give these people the means they have to room their lives. That is why, as the chairman suggested, it is important to move this disaster supplemental bill forward, it is important to move it immediately, it is important it be considered today, which is why the rule must pass so we can get under way with getting relief to people who need it.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the Juvenile Crime Control Act currently before the House. I firmly believe we must be tough on repeat juvenile offenders. Juvenile crime is not only continuing to grow, but it is one of the most troubling issues facing law enforcement officials and the communities they seek to protect. This bill doesn't make productive changes in this area. Rather, it preempts State authority, imposes a one-size-fits-all solution, and has a discriminatory impact on native American youth. I would like to elaborate on my concerns at this time. First, this bill takes extreme steps to preempt State authority in determining how prosecutors will deal with those who violate State laws. North Dakota communities, including those on our four Indian reservations, need additional resources to build, expand, and operate juvenile correction and detention facilities. But in order to get this help, they must sign off lock-stock-and-barrel on the Federal prescriptions contained in H.R. 3 about the prosecution of State crimes. I have the utmost confidence in the sound judgment of North Dakota prosecutors, judges, parents, and community leaders to determine how best to deal with juvenile crime in our State. Second, this bill imposes a Washington one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of juvenile crime. North Dakota is not similar to downtown Los Angeles. While the problem of juvenile crime in my State is significant and growing worse, it bares no relationship to what is happening in our Nation's urban centers. North Dakota law enforcement officials take this issue seriously and are taking steps to address the problem. One example of the overly prescriptive nature of this bill that I would like to cite, is the requirement that each U.S. attorney's office establish a task force to coordinate the apprehension of armed violent youth with State and local law enforcement. This may be an urgent problem in New York or Los Angeles; it is not a problem currently facing our communities. Law enforcement officials need to be given the resources and then be allowed to determine how best to deal with juvenile crime. Third, I have serious concerns about this bill's impact on native American youth. The only real arena in my State where Federal courts are the primary courts for addressing juvenile crime are crimes that occur on Indian reservations. By modifying Federal law to treat juveniles--as young as 13--as adults, this bill has a discriminatory impact on youth living on our Nation's reservations. I don't believe it is fair for these kids to be singled out for tougher punishment than their classmates who are non-Indians. As a whole, this bill represents a flawed strategy for dealing with juvenile crime. While I believe incarceration of violent youth offenders should be used as a tool to combat teenage crime, it should not be the only tool. H.R. 3 completely ignores the possibility that these juvenile offenders--as young as 13--can be rehabilitated. Rather than allow some of the funds contained in the bill to be used for programs to turn these kids around, this bill limits the funding strictly to incarceration of these youths. If we have no hope of rehabilitating 13-year-olds, then by passing this bill, we are making a very sad statement about the future of our country. The substitute I supported, embodied a more balanced approach to this serious problem. It required that 60 percent of the $500 million annual authorization be given to local communities for prevention programs. Funding could also be used to establish comprehensive treatment, education, training, and after-care programs for juveniles in detention facilities; implementing graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders; and for juvenile courts to implement intensive delinquency supervision efforts. These concerns were paramount in my consideration of this bill. An additional factor that led me to oppose the bill is the fact that North Dakota does not currently qualify for the 3-year funding included in H.R. 3. Even if my State were to decide to abide by the Federal prescriptions over violations of State laws in order to gain additional resources, our legislature does not meet again until 1999. I am hopeful that when H.R. 3 reaches the Senate, reasonable modifications can be made to make the bill both tough and smart in dealing with juvenile crime.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I come to the well as an expert in what can happen when levees are not sufficient to withstand raging flood waters. Three weeks ago the city of Grand Forks went under. We have a city of 50,000, the second largest city in my State, which sustained hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. In fact, the Federal Reserve Board of St. Paul has estimated that the damage in Grand Forks and through the Red River Valley, the property damage alone is $1.2 to $1.8 billion. Mr. Chairman, I believe an ESA exemption sufficient to address levee repair, where necessary to protect human life or prevent substantial property damage, only makes very basic sense. This body must evaluate and weigh conflicting priorities on critical issues like the one before us. Clearly we have to come down on the side of protecting human life. We have to come down on the side of preventing major property damage. We have to protect levees. Let us pass this bill, as amended by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I commend her and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] for their wonderful work in bringing this legislation together and to the floor today for our consideration. I believe this is extraordinarily important legislation and addresses in an overdue, albeit ultimately very important way, I think, the pendulum that the State, that we have to deal with, as we wrestle with dysfunctional families and the children of those families. The 1980 Child Welfare Act clearly made the priority reunification of families. Obviously that is a critical goal and one that is appropriately sought out through our child welfare processes. But it certainly is not the only priority or necessarily the overriding priority. I think the overriding priority has to be the best interest of the child, what is in the best interests of the children of these families, and I think sometimes under the 1980 legislation that has been relegated to a secondary status. We can all agree that there ought to be no higher priority than the health and safety of children, the children of these families. So, as this act before us does, putting that as the clear priority, overriding the unification of families, if there is even an issue that the health or safety of the child might be threatened by reunification is a very important step to take. A little more difficult, and I think one that the bill addresses in a balanced and thoughtful fashion, is how long do we give the process time to work before we give up on reunification and pursue full speed ahead on getting the child placed in a permanent family arrangement. The shorter timeframes which this bill would move forward, I also think, are terribly important. We have unacceptable circumstances of children languishing in foster homes, or maybe a series of foster homes, while social workers patiently try to work with parents who just have not been able to grow up and deal responsibly with their parental responsibilities. There comes a time when the child is hurt from this attention to reunification, and that is not acceptable. The child's interests have to be paramount, and I believe the shorter timeframes will help us in this regard. Let me tell my colleagues just a for-instance that happened to me. I was watching a lovely little boy, about 18 months, wander around a shop, and I was speaking with him, about the age of my son. I spoke with who I thought was the mother of this child. She indicated that she was in fact a foster mother. She had had this boy from the time he was 6 months old; she had had him 1 year. There was no question from the interaction between the child and the mother that the child thought that this woman was his mother, and yet they were in this indeterminate foster care status while they waited for unification. We cannot let these things languish. As I wrap up, I support this legislation, commend its sponsors. Let us put interests of the children first, as advanced by this legislation.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as North Dakota's sole Member of this body, I rise on behalf of the people of North Dakota to express the profound gratitude that we feel toward the outpouring of support demonstrated in this Chamber and across the country as North Dakotans deal with the unprecedented disasters that have afflicted our State, most particularly the city of Grand Forks. The city of Grand Forks, a city of 50,000, has established a benchmark in terms of flooding disasters for a community of this size. Never before have we seen a city of 50,000 so completely inundated, so completely devastated by a flooding river. The river in this case, the Red River of the North, which flows normally at 16 feet, maybe 15 feet on a summer afternoon, flood stage: 28 feet; the flooding waters of 54 feet in depth ultimately reached the dikes and inundated this city. It was the flood of record. They are now saying a flood of 1,000-year- event dimensions. As if the resulting inundation city-wide was not bad enough, fire broke out in the downtown business district, and as so many watched in the television footage of the event, a fire department who normally has water as its best ally in fighting flames was rendered powerless by the fact that they could not even get at the hydrants because they were literally under the flooding Red River water that was coursing through the streets of the town. Now as we deal with the aftermath of this unprecedented disaster, we have seen an outpouring of support from across this country that has truly touched us and gives us a great deal of assistance and moral support as well as financial support in moving forward to pick up the pieces and rebuild this community. Examples that have occurred just in my own experience include a 7- year-old boy, who in his car noted that he was 2 years old when Hurricane Andrew devastated their family's home, brought by a box of food supplies for me to take to the people of Grand Forks. The shoe shop located in the base of the Longworth House Office Building has devoted 10 percent of its proceeds for 2 weeks on shoe repair to assisting the people of Grand Forks. Phil Jackson, famous coach of the Chicago Bulls basketball team; I am proud to say North Dakota native, graduate of the University of North Dakota, and he was a star for the Fighting Sioux basketball team, has agreed to cut a public service announcement which will inform people across the country of how they might help the people of Grand Forks recover from this disaster. Now, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the outpouring across the country has been so significant, I also want to let my colleagues know about the outpouring that has occurred across both parties within this Chamber at a time when people, I think, are very cynical in terms of whether we have a political system that can quit its partisan bickering long enough to respond to problems. We have seen exactly that occur within the past week. Five days after the dikes were breached, the President of the United States was there to encourage and comfort the flood victims with promises of additional assistance. Six days later the White House brings up to the Hill a supplemental assistance package. Six days after the dikes breached, Chairman Bob Livingston, the majority chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, had additional assistance inserted into the disaster supplemental bill being considered by the appropriations body. Not enough, not configured exactly how we want, but, as he indicated, more needs to be done, this is a work in process, the first crack we had in Congress to help the people of Grand Forks. Thanks to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] they were assisted in action by his committee. A day later, the Speaker devoted a Friday evening that otherwise had been scheduled for familytime to come to North Dakota to see the devastation. I was very pleased to travel along with Speaker Gingrich, as well as the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], to visit with the people of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks and see the extent of the devastation. I am extraordinarily grateful to the Speaker and know that his presence in our area meant an awful lot to people as they deal with the unpleasant dimension of pumping out basements, assessing whether homes can be saved, and trying to pick up the pieces of their businesses. On Monday, just 2 days later, majority leader Dick Armey also came to North Dakota, bringing with him a number of our colleagues including the gentleman from California [Mr. Rogan], the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. Again, both political parties, heavy representation from the majority leaders of this body, as well as the majority Members of this body, coming to our area to extend their concern and see how they could help. The people of North Dakota will never forget the conscientious extending of the hand of help and concern that occurred this week, and I am very proud to serve in this Chamber with the Members of both political parties that have shown how deeply they care and how much they want to help.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, this is a floor that sees an awful lot of tough, partisan debate. I think it is very important that our colleagues see tonight that when it really matters, when it is really on the line, like it is for the people that we represent in the context of this disaster, this is a body that can, in a very bipartisan way, step up to the plate and reflect, really, what the American people are thinking, a desire to provide help for people who need help. Mr. Speaker, there is another North Dakota native in this House. I mentioned earlier that the majority leader is a native of North Dakota. So is the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Ramstad, who very capably represents Minnesota and the Minneapolis area, specifically. He has been absolutely more genuine and more sincere in his offer of support, just as sincere as he could be. I appreciate all he has done for us already, and look forward to his continued help as we try to get the disaster assistance put into place.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], said when it comes to disasters, once a North Dakotan, always a North Dakotan. The Congressman, although so capably representing Minnesota, has certainly shown with the depths of his concern and the sincerity of the energy behind his effort to do something to help that that is true for him as well. Mr. Speaker, this concludes the portion of our discussion about the Grand Forks, ND disaster and the disaster that has impacted our entire area. I do ask for Members' support and prayers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight have nothing to do with political party or political ideology. In fact it has rather to do with something much more basic than that, disaster of an unprecedented character that has inundated the second largest city in the State that I represent, the State of North Dakota, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage up and down the Red River in light of the disastrous floods we continue to experience. During the next few minutes I want to brief my colleagues about what brought this about, what weather circumstances were out there that caused flooding of this unprecedented character. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues of the preparations made to fight the flood, because I think it is important that they understand we did not just sit and give way to the river. In fact, this is only the final stages of what had been a heroic several-week period of frantic effort to beat these waters back. I want to tell you, sadly, about how the battle for Grand Forks was lost and how the city has now been totally inundated and the consequences of it. I want to bring you up to date in terms of how people are coping with this disaster and assess finally where we go from here. First, what brought all this about? Well, this has been one winter for the books in North Dakota. We are used to tough weather, we pride ourselves on it, but this year we had an unbelievable series of first occurrences, more snowfall than ever, worse blizzards than ever, a 50- year storm on April 8, only now not quite 3 weeks ago, dumping more snow on already land that was just buried in snow. We had the first Presidential disaster declaration issued statewide for a snow emergency. Now very unusual to have a snow emergency, but in this circumstance we literally could not deal with the volumes of snow on our roads that were impeding access, critical access, to medical facilities and the like for the citizens of North Dakota, as you know many scattered about on the farms and remote smaller towns across the State. We needed more help in keeping our access to the facilities, and that is why as we coped with the snow, the Presidential declaration issued statewide had become acquired. I think that we would have been OK but for the blizzard of nearly 3 weeks ago. The meteorologist tells us that this storm alone was a 50- year event, worst storm in 50 years. So you take a situation where the land has been saturated with wetfall, covered with more snow than we have ever had in the history of recording snowfall in North Dakota, and add to it the worst blizzard in 50 years, and you had all the elements for a true disaster. As the snow started to melt, we began to see in the rural areas just what we were up against. This picture shows what we have seen across an awful lot of rural acreage in North Dakota, standing water of flooding proportion and the small tributaries which carried it to the major river arteries also flooding. As the floodwater went from the rural reaches to the larger rivers, the flooding accelerated. We began with the State really following the blizzard of nearly 3 weeks ago, the April 6 blizzard, in a virtual deep freeze. In fact we had some tragic loss of life due to exposure the second week in April as the State coped with freezing temperatures and power outages. As the weather warmed up, at last, and all the snow melted, the water really started to flood. Now we thought we were ready for the floods that we knew were to come. The Weather Service had given us early forecasts predicting severe flooding and giving us specific numbers that allowed the Corps of Engineers to begin the work on the dikes for these cities literally weeks earlier than had ever been attempted before. By the time we came into the month of April, millions of dollars had been spent elevating the levees and getting them ready for the flood water that we knew was to come. General Furman, the head of civil works for the Army Corps of Engineers, surveyed the preparations and indicated that he thought this represented the very best advanced measure work the Corps of Engineers had ever attempted, the best effort to stop cities from flooding represented in weeks of frantic activity, activity including the movement of massive amounts of clay and dirt in earthen levees at the city-wide level and then, as individual homeowners prepared, literally millions of sandbags, an estimated 6 million placed in Grand Forks alone, put in place bag by bag by bag, with the countless hours of hundreds and then thousands of volunteers. The floods impacted in particular the Red River Valley and caused us the most severe flooding that we have had to deal with, and the Red River is somewhat unique in North Dakota; it flows north. This is an unfortunate character for a river in the north country because you take water in the south and you send it into ice in the north before it is melted, frequently resulting in ice jams and exacerbating the flooding problem. All up the Red River Valley the cities have had problems; Wahpeton having their crest occur literally in the height of that April 6 and 7 blizzard, people enduring ice and snow to place urgently needed sandbags in dikes that were just about to give way. Wahpeton fared relatively well through the flooding crests that they sustained. Unfortunately, their sister city, Breckenridge, MN, did not fare as well, and there have been hundreds of homes flooded in that city. North flows the river. As the problem eases in Wahpeton, the problem grows for Fargo and Moorhead. Frantic efforts have saved most of those cities, although dozens of homes have been lost in that fight as rural houses could not be protected and as urban ones in some neighborhoods gave way. Urgently constructed secondary dikes prevented much greater flooding in that area. Coming now to Grand Forks, certainly the greatest loss we have sustained in the flooding, the river running now at 54 feet. That is over a flood stage of 28 feet and over a normal elevation for that river of 16 feet. A river that on a summer day is 16 feet deep is 54 feet deep as it rampages through the neighborhoods of Grand Forks tonight. This is several feet above the forecast. In fact, it is entirely possible that inundation would not have occurred had we prepared for a height of this magnitude. It is by a factor of several feet the highest flood ever reported in Grand Forks, ND, and they did not have the dikes constructed to the level to deal with it. Frantic and truly heroic efforts made in the final hours of the fight to get the levees up with the rapidly increasing height to the river unfortunately were unsuccessful. The general river flows in Grand Forks normally run at about 5,000 cubic feet per second which is how they measure river flows. The water flowing by Grand Forks today is 110,000 cubic feet per second, 22 times the normal rate of flow, which gives you a very good idea about the amount of water in the Red River system that is funneling by Grand Forks and inundating that city and threatening two cities to the north, Drayton and Pembina, as the river crests continue to work their way north. Unfortunately the battle for Grand Forks, as anyone knows who has seen the television footage, was lost. It is a very flat city and the dikes were not capable of being lifted to the final elevations the floodwater required. As the dikes gave way and the streets in the lowest lying parts of town began to be inundated, they flooded also the city's storm sewer system. A storm sewer system very efficiently takes runoff water from city streets to the river when the river is at its normal elevation, but in this flat city when the river is at an elevation that is higher than the city streets, it just as efficiently transfers the water from the river throughout the neighborhoods. That is why only 1 in 10 of the flood victims in North Dakota had flood insurance. The great majority was well outside the 100-year flood plain, but water came charging through the storm sewers and bubbling up through the manhole covers on every corner slowly but surely inundated virtually 90 percent of the city of Grand Forks. There were some very dangerous periods during the loss of the city of Grand Forks. There were evacuations occurring in the dead of night, people forced to leave their homes with the possessions that they had on their backs in advance of the flooding waters. Others had slightly more time. I watched the Red River High School serve as an evacuation center, and I will tell you it looked something like you might see out of a war zone. People, evacuees from the city I know so well coming flooding into the school and being routed on to schoolbuses and sent to the shelter at the Grand Forks Air Force Base, all keeping them out of harm's way and the ever-rising waters. The hospital for the city that had 200 patients, many of them critically ill and in intensive care, had to be evacuated as their water system became polluted. People were med-evac'd to hospitals throughout North Dakota and Minnesota. Fortunately all of that transfer occurred with no loss of life. All of the evacuations occurred with no loss of life. The University of North Dakota, the largest university in North Dakota, a school of 11,000 forced 3 weeks before the end of the semester to just shut it down. The president of that university indicated to the professors: Give your students the grades they have earned to date or give them incompletes, but we are done with the semester, there will be no commencement, school is out, school is over, get your students out of town. All of this occurred as the water rose, and the next two charts I would show you go to show you the dimensions, the depths of the water that especially the lower lying parts of town had to contend with, yet again more than 90 percent of the town ended up being inundated. This is a home that has been in the water a day or two, and as you can see it is literally floating. Houses will float, and so these houses, a number of the houses, will be totally wrecked as they floated off their foundations, as the one in the picture illustrates. This shows a line of cars, people forced to leave their houses so quickly they could not even get their vehicles, and those vehicles have been bobbing like toy cars and trucks on the streets as the water has so completely inundated them, as you can see. Just when we thought it could not get any worse it got worse. A fire broke out that ultimately claimed 11 of the major buildings in the downtown intersection. This picture shows the first building to go into flame. They believe the cause of it was broken gas pipes. I talked to a fireman that was down fighting the fire, and he says, you know it is ironic, but a fireman's best friend is water. Water is a critical element we use to control fire. And yet we could not fight this fire because there was too much water, too much water on the street to get our equipment down, and they literally dove under water trying to locate hydrants to hook up their hose, and when they finally did get their equipment moved in rough proximity to the fire, got their hoses hooked up to the hydrants, the city's water system had been so badly damaged that there was no pressure for the water to fight the fire. Ultimately it was fought by air, Forest Service planes dropping a fire retardant on it and a Coast Guard helicopter using a device that was capable of bringing river water over the flame ultimately controlled it again after 11 buildings were lost, buildings including the Grand Forks Herald, the city's newspaper, one of the State's largest newspapers as well as a major bank and other major commercial buildings in downtown. The devastating aftermath is revealed in the next two pictures I have. You have a city that one person called it a mixture between Venice with the water and Berlin with the charred remnants of buildings. This is the scene today, a scene that has been widely reported in newspapers across the country and across the world reflecting the extent of the devastation that Grand Forks, ND has had to cope with. The loss is as comprehensive as it is horrific. I mean, this is a God-awful scene, but just as God-awful is the fact that this disaster has touched virtually everyone in the community. I was there last weekend, and for an example, on a boat ride, as we toured the devastated downtown, the photographer taking pictures said, as we passed the newspaper, I might get a little emotional here. I asked him why in particular. He had lost 25 years of negatives in the fire at the Grand Forks Herald, all of his life's work reflected in his negatives, all of them torched and left without one in that fire. Later that afternoon I was on a street assessment looking at areas of town that had not yet been evacuated and the determination being made whether or not they needed to be evacuated. The policeman that was with me on that assessment had already lost his home, and the city attorney's home was subject to imminent threat and has now also been inundated. The mayor of Grand Forks, Mayor Pat Owens, a woman who has shown such tremendous character and courage in the face of this disaster had, all the while she maintained her public leadership, faced deep personal challenge. She had a 92-year-old father that she could not get to leave his house even though he was being flooded. He finally agreed to leave when necessary and agreed to take his dogs along. Her own house, aside from worrying about her father, was also lost. When I flew out Monday morning from Grand Forks, the people at the Northwest Airlines ticket desk were unshaven and unshowered, not surprising, given the fact that there is no water in Grand Forks. They indicated that to a person, the people at the counter had each lost their homes. Their families had been evacuated. But they said it could be worse, we still have employment. The telephone company is the only operating business in Grand Forks today, and it is operating because it is completely sandbagged. Crews are working around the clock pumping out water and actually using blow dryers to keep the cables dry. Boats bring in supplies to maintain the 24-hour shift. The Grand Forks Herald, I believe, is a real example of just the courage of this community in coping with the disaster. Mr. Speaker, the city is presently publishing in a school north of town. The paper is being printed in St. Paul and flown back for distribution in Grand Forks free of charge so that people can track the information, and there is no advertising revenue in these newspapers supporting this city effort. This column, ``The Day That Changed Everything,'' was literally written by the editor as the newspaper building burned and destroyed completely that newspaper. The community, being desperate for news, continues to benefit from the heroic efforts of the Grand Forks Herald and its staff, and I really salute them for their effort. Mr. Speaker, the community response to this disaster has really been overwhelming. The Grand Forks Air Force Base, the major Air Force base 13 miles out of town, has brought resources to bear that have been critical to our getting through this. They took a massive three-bay hangar and turned it over as an evacuation center, housing up to 2,500 evacuees on cots; not very comfortable cots I know, because I slept on one Saturday and Sunday night in that shelter. But the hospitality, the friendliness, the support of encouragement provided by the men and women of the Air Force working at that base was something to behold. They have done a tremendous service and shown what an essential part of our community they truly are. Families throughout the region, both in North Dakota and the Minnesota side, have phoned into radio stations with the most unbelievable offers you have ever heard on the air: We have a home. We have room, we have a spare room, we will take a family. We have a finished basement. We will offer to house a family for the duration, until they can get back into their home. Can you imagine in some of the areas of this country people turning their homes open to total strangers for a period of time that is anything but certain, but could literally run weeks, if not more than a month? Well, that is what happened in great number in North Dakota. As a result, the number of people having to spend the entire duration of the evacuation period in that Air Force base has now dropped to under 300 as people find more comfortable shelter with friends, relatives, or these wonderful volunteers taking total strangers into their homes and into their families. The mayor, I believe, put in perspective what has happened to Grand Forks. She said, we have suffered a disaster. Our hearts are broken, but we will get through this. It could be worse. Property, as difficult as it is to lose precious, lifelong possessions, can be replaced, homes can be rebuilt. But to date, we have come through this disaster without a single loss of life, and life is truly irreplaceable. That record held and held again today in Grand Forks, and let us all hope and pray that that continues to be the case, and we will avoid the ultimate disaster, loss of life, in this flood. Well, where do we go from here? I will tell my colleagues where we go. We pull together and we build back. The local support has, as I mentioned, been absolutely amazing. And what North Dakotans have seen I think to their amazement over the last several days is the extent of national support that has been extended. There are innumerable stories I could tell my colleagues, corporate and individuals from across the country reaching out and assisting. AT&T put free phone lines immediately into that shelter, for example. Life USA Today Insurance Co. called me in my office yesterday and said, how can we help? Can we send cash, can we send people up and help clean out? Anything we can do, let us know. The AFL-CIO has contacted me and said, we want to help. We have people that lost everything they have. Do you have ways you could suggest we can help? Money or trade skills as we build back? I think, making it real personal, something happened in my office this morning that took me by surprise and was incredibly special to me. I saw a fellow I had not seen before, a boy with him. I figured maybe they were from North Dakota visiting the Nation's Capital. But no, they are people that live in the area, and the 7-year-old wrote this note that he wanted me to share with the people of Grand Forks. To the children of Grand Forks: My family and I survived Hurricane Andrew 5 years ago in Florida, and I know that all of you will triumph over these floods of 1997. Accept these small gifts, and good luck to all of you. Peter Boyce, 7 years old, Jamie Elementary School. Well, Peter, his father went on to explain, insisted that they pull together some bottled water, took the canned goods they could spare, and they brought them up, two boxes full. And I am under instruction from Peter Boyce to get those to the children of Grand Forks. That is just a perfect example of how people have reached out. There are 1-800 numbers established, which I do not believe protocol allows me to share with you on the floor. But the Red Cross has an 800 number, and in addition there is a 1-800 number set up through FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And any of my colleagues that might like to individually provide that kind of support demonstrated by the gesture of Peter Boyce, I would urge you to contact those numbers. In spite of how touched we are with this national outpouring and the charitable outreach of thousands of Americans across the country, a number that I believe is going to even grow larger, we need the help of the Federal Government. I will tell my colleagues why we need the help of the Federal Government. It is kind of illustrated by a true story that occurred as the dikes were giving way. An engineer for the Corps of Engineers, a very talented woman engineer that had been there for all of the building of the dikes, she was frantically looking at her topography maps, looking for a secondary line of defense against the flooding waters. And she was crying and she said, there is no high ground, there is no high ground. Well, unfortunately, that is the case in a figurative way with the status of the city of Grand Forks right now. There was not a part of the community left untouched, nothing to build upon. The financial community, devastated. The university, sent home. The business community, under water and then aflame. We are going to have to completely rebuild this community, and it is going to take all of our help and all of our work. There have been some wonderful things that have occurred this week. The President came to Grand Forks, ND, and if my colleagues could only have seen what he did for the morale of the people spending the nights in the shelter. He told them: You are not in this alone. We are standing with you. And it meant an awful lot. The President returned and within 1 day of his return sent to the Congress an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill requesting an additional $300 million for relief in the Grand Forks area. The House Committee on Appropriations marked up this morning, a markup that convened 6 days after the dikes breached. They indicated that they also wanted to help and passed $210 million of relief on the $488 million that was in the additional relief package, bringing the total, not just for Grand Forks, but for North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, to $698 million. The chairman said it right when he announced to his committee members this morning: This is not enough. More will be required, but we are still assessing the damages, and this is a place to start. Disasters know no partisan lines, and I am very pleased to announce on the floor this evening that Speaker Gingrich will be visiting Grand Forks, ND, tomorrow, late afternoon, touring the devastation. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the House majority leader, a North Dakota native himself, will be touring the area on Monday, all to learn more about the extent of the devastation we have experienced and to be prepared to help. Ultimately, the Federal resources will be a critical part of our rebuilding. But even more critical than that and more fundamental than that is the tough character, the tough and resilient character and the optimism in the face of all odds of the people of North Dakota. I would close with my comments before yielding briefly to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] who in his State also has suffered a disaster, and he will tell you about it. But I want to close with this story I think reflecting the resilient character of the people of North Dakota. As I mentioned earlier, I spent Saturday and Sunday night with the evacuees in that Air Force hangar. On Monday morning as I got up to go to the airport, it was about 5:30 in the morning, and in a hangar full of more than 2,000 people you are always going to have some people milling about. Even that early hour I noticed two women about 70 years old walking around. I went to visit with them a little. I was amazed at how good they looked. Their hair was all fixed, they were presenting themselves very, very well, especially given the fact that they were staying in a hangar and it was 5:30 in the morning. Out of my surprise I said, you look great. And one woman replied: Well, of course; some of these soldiers are really good-looking. I think that underscores the unquenchable optimism of the people of North Dakota, and with the help of the Federal Government and with the help and prayers of the American people, we will be back and we will be back bigger and better than ever. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, a freshman Member who distinguishes himself with his conscientious service to his State of South Dakota, Mr. Thune.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 62, a proposed constitutional amendment to require a two- thirds majority vote to approve bills that increase internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. This amendment, which its supporters freely acknowledge will fail in the House and will not likely even be considered by the Senate, serves only to postpone consideration of a balanced budget plan that includes actual tax relief for American working families. I would remind my colleagues that April 15 is not only tax day but is also the day by which Congress is required by law to have passed a budget resolution. Unfortunately, because the majority waited 2 months after the President submitted his budget on February 6 before engaging the White House in serious negotiations, the House is today engaging in empty political gestures rather than enacting a balanced budget plan with real tax relief. Besides being a diversion from the important task of balancing the budget, House Joint Resolution 62 also violates the democratic principle of majority rule. The Constitution specified just three instances in which a supermajority vote is required for approval by Congress--overriding the President's veto, submission of a constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a Member from the House. With these three limited exceptions, the Founding Fathers adhered closely to the fundamental principle of majority rule. It is important to note that none of the exceptions relate to public policy issues but rather to protecting the Constitution and establishing the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government. House Joint Resolution 62, on the other hand, would give a minority of members the authority to control a fundamental component of fiscal policy. In summary, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and move forward to agree on a plan to enact tax relief for working families while balancing the budget by 2002.